[Closed] Prosecuted for riding bikes on National Trust land?

he claimed to be a magistrate

surely you should have punted him in the slats then proceeded to enquire why he wasnt doing real criminals

jeesus this place is slipping

Surely you should have punted him in the slats then proceeded to enquire why he wasnt doing real criminals

I'd started undoing the stem ready to drop the forks and give him a good hoofing but unfortunately he'd said his piece and buggered off before I could get the front wheel out.

Cycle Protest

I am cycling here as a deliberate act of personal and public protest against the current access situation for mountain bikers in the UK, and I intend to take part in an organised political protest, akin to the Kinder Scout trespasses of 1932, against the unjustified continuing inequity of rights of access between walkers and cyclists,
Cycling constitutes not only the matter and form of my protest, but also the essence, nature and quality of my protest. Cycling both constitutes and is inseparable from the message of my protest.?The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in law, and any attempt to restrict my right to protest either personally or as part of a group will amount to an unjustifiable interference with my article 10 and 11 Human Rights
My protest is designed to be as unintrusive as possible, and it is not my intention to interfere in any way any with lawful activities. If at any time I become aware of disturbance to any lawful activities or conflict with protected wildlife or a nature conservation site in my vicinity I will move on immediately to avoid continuing that disturbance. I maintain that my presence and protest here causes no more disturbance or interruption than the unrestricted right of access that I am permitted to exercise on foot.

Reference caselaw:
DPP v Jones [1995]
Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23
Kuznetsov [2008] ECHR

That's a full A3 poster, not a card... I think we probably need something shorter and sharper that's effectively shorthand for all the above.

On a slight parallel, as well as riding a bike, I walk and run a fair bit and there's nothing more ridiculous than someone riding a footpath pretending to be 'lost', you know, here we are on Kinder Scout and you're pretending that you thought it was the Sett Valley Trail. It just looks stupid and duplicitous and it's an insult to my intelligence.

If you're going to ride footpaths, do it with confidence and a sense that you have a moral right to be there. Because, guess what, you have.

As a further aside, my opinion of the National Trust went precipitously southwards after they thoughtfully covered the bottom section of the Edale Cross / Jacob's bridleway with fist-sized loose rubble that's horrible on foot, on a bike and apparently on a horse too.

I've been told informally that it was to make access easier for the MRT's Landrovers, but it suggests that the National Trust is more interested in running twee tea-rooms than it is in I have no issue with the track being maintained, but the way they did it was awful.

Has any cyclist ever been prosecuted simply for riding off road? Other than on the pavement or through a shopping centre pedestrianised area it seems pretty unlikely.

I have vague memories of a couple of mountain bikers in the Peak District being fined under a National Park bylaw back in the 1990s - based on reading a local newspaper. See also [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/row-peak-district-byelaws-against-cyclists ]this thread[/url]. That said, the emphasis round here in the Peak at least, seems to have shifted towards encouraging cyclists to ride legally rather than fining them.

It must be some years ago now that the NT were (allegedly) collecting car reg's of suspected cheeky trail riders in the Goyt Valley.

BadlyWiredDog - If you're going to ride footpaths, do it with confidence and a sense that you have a moral right to be there. Because, guess what, you have.

Very much the above and very little of the below

ninfan -I suggest that you have learned a valuable lesson here:

option one: Smile and wave boys, smile and wave, don't get trapped into a discussion, just ride merrily into the sunset

Option two: if they say "you're not allowed to ride here" or similar, and option one is out, then the correct answer is "Yes, I know, silly isn't it?" Quickly followed up by riding off merrily into the sunset

Option three: upon encountering the plainly ridiculous (I'm a magistrate) then the correct response is "That's nice for you" before, as you can possibly guess by now, riding merrily into the sunset

Job jobbed

I've clashed with ninfan and Open MTB on this before but I really don't see why the official group that is supposed to be promoting better access is actively reinforcing lies and misunderstanding when they say you should agree with people who say its illegal to ride footpaths.

In my view we'll get more of what we want when we act like grown up, stop referring to stuff as "Cheeky" and educate people

In my view we'll get more of what we want when we act like grown up, stop referring to stuff as "Cheeky" and educate people

+1

I grew up with my parents working in the National Trust, until I went to uni I'd never lived outside of an estate (of the non council variety).

Some people are dicks. Top of the list:
I've come home to find people wandering around the garden
I've patiently explained to walkers the difference between an OS map and the definitive map. And that yes it's shown as a footpath, but it's not (it's a 10ft fence, a deer park, a severn-trent pumping station and a reservoir), there are no 'footpaths' on that estate despite the OS maps errors.
I once came home to people wandering around our house!

I suspect that in the workers version of events (and the truth that lies somewhere between the two probably) Bikeboy is probably one of those dicks too.

I maintain that my presence and protest here causes no more disturbance or interruption than the unrestricted right of access that I am permitted to exercise on foot.

I quite like this section though I'd probably drop the protest bit.

I thought the protest bit was the important part, since everyone has a RIGHT to peaceful protest. Your action of riding the bike at that spot is not just recreational, or to go from A to B, but part of a protest.... and therefore by definition, you have a right to do so legally and without recourse (provided no criminal damage is being done).

"All they are allowed to do is ask that you get off your bike and walk."

On a footpath, yes. I believe it has to be the landowner (or a representative) too. My understanding is it only becomes a problem if you refuse to leave.

I thought the protest bit was the important part, since everyone has a RIGHT to peaceful protest. Your action of riding the bike at that spot is not just recreational, or to go from A to B, but part of a protest.... and therefore by definition, you have a right to do so legally and without recourse (provided no criminal damage is being done).

It's not an absolute right. If you're breaking a law, you're still breaking a law, even if you claim to be protesting against the law.

Reductio ad absurdum: I'm not stealing, I'm protesting against capitalism.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

For me the whole protest thing might make you sound like a bit of a know it all especially throwing in human rights which is not the desired result.

Added to my earlier post I think you should make it clear that you are there for recreational reasons, we need to stop avoiding the issue and making excuses for ourselves.

You'll never bring the nutters round to our way of thinking but you can neutralise some people with polite education.

That trail I mentioned earlier in this thread, well I've not ridden it for ages and ages now. Now I prefer to trail run it.

In its glory, this morning..

[img] [/img]

I think we probably need something shorter and sharper that's effectively shorthand for all the above.

In most of these cases I suspect stuff is said that is quite a lot shorter and sharper (and only nominally shorthand for the above).

The 'right to protest' thing does have the whiff of 'Freeman of the Land' about it.

I prefer the 'yes I know, daft isn't it?' approach to random walkers. If a landowner or agent kicks up a fuss, I'll just get off and walk.

I really don't see why the official group that is supposed to be promoting better access is actively reinforcing lies and misunderstanding when they say you should agree with people who say its illegal to ride footpaths.

In my view we'll get more of what we want when we act like grown up, stop referring to stuff as "Cheeky" and educate people .

But riding a bike on a footpath on NT land [b]is[/b] illegal

It's all well and good being high handed and claiming that you are trying to educate people about the difference, but do you even know when you are breaking the law yourself?

I would openly challenge you to give me a list of all the commonly ridden land designations where riding a bike would be illegal rather than trespass. Let's give you a few starters and see if you can tell us which is which, so we can go out and 'educate' people like you think we should:

CROW access land
Common Land
MOD land
Forestry Commission land
WIldlife Trust/Nature Reserve
NAtional Naure Reserve
SSSI

It's not an absolute right. If you're breaking a law, you're still breaking a law, even if you claim to be protesting against the law.

Nonsense, youre not breaking the law if you are justified in doing so by an alternative overarching right or reasonable excuse. If you try and punch me in the face, you are breaking the law, if I see you swing and punch you first, I am not breaking the law, I have a [i]right[/i] to self defence, exercising that right doesn't [i]excuse[/i] me breaking the law, it [i]prevents[/i] me breaking the law.

^^^^^^^^^

Great thread and all this arguing is interesting, but if the above is correct then isn't this part of the problem?

Knowing if you are/not breaking the law is a sodding minefield that even the experts don't seem to be able to agree on!

Is anyone able to post a definitive answer for all this?

Let's give you a few starters and see if you can tell us which is which, so we can go out and 'educate' people like you think we should:

CROW access land
Common Land
MOD land
Forestry Commission land
WIldlife Trust/Nature Reserve
NAtional Naure Reserve
SSSI

Nonsense, youre not breaking the law if you are justified in doing so by an alternative overarching right or reasonable excuse.

I would suggest that stating that the "higher rights in regard to this PROW have yet to be determined by public inquiry and as such I believe the definitive map to be incorrect and assert my right to ride here" would be shorter and sufficient to confuse the uninitiated

The odds that there has been a public inquiry (part of the process to settle claims of higher rights) are low. Picking your fights might be wise.

Thoughts on this ninfan*. ?

* Resident subject matter expert

Is anyone able to post a definitive answer for all this?

I doubt it, the issues are complex with local nuances. For example Urban Commons are no go for cyclists unless a bridleway or higher exists and then you are restricted to the line. However the land owner can give consent (Lee Quarry) for example which then allows cyclists to ride there.

There is a strong public health argument to free up access to PROW footpaths, but they won't/ shouldn't be made in to bridleways as it would give LA's a big headache to tackle the gates etc required

I think that would be perfectly acceptable on a rote that were 'of debatable historic status' or over which there was long established de-facto bike use (i.e. It's about time we claimed it, something that I know is in discussion behind the scenes over, due to changes in the recording process under the deregulation act, but I can't go public with yet)

It's very close to what the TRF used to say with moto use on old routes, but NERC removed their ability to rely on it, non-motorisedusers absolutely can use it though.

I doubt it, the issues are complex with local nuances. For example Urban Commons are no go for cyclists unless a bridleway or higher exists and then you are restricted to the line. However the land owner can give consent (Lee Quarry) for example which then allows cyclists to ride there.

Pretty much my point, it's, simply [b]remarkably[/b] complex and nuanced - even the greatest of rights of way/access law geeks cannot, realistically, ever know the full legal status of the land they are riding on at all times, therefore to say we should be 'educating' people by saying we are not breaking the law is impossible, because so few of us actually know whether we are.

There is a strong public health argument to free up access to PROW footpaths, but they won't/ shouldn't be made in to bridleways as it would give LA's a big headache to tackle the gates etc required

Going to put this out there,

We are not going to win anything by keeping on discussing blanket opening of footpaths

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, therefore arguing for it makes us utterley unreasonable, we have been repeating the same mantra for thirty years, and achieved nothing more than banging our head against a brick walll, because every time we discuss it we fail to recognise and admit that not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, so it just pours petrol on the fire and stokes up opposition

The debate needs to move on and argue for access to the routes that [b]are[/b] reasonable for bikes to be changed, as quickly and as easily as possible. there will not be a blanket change

I thought you needed to show horse use for any new claim? As well as free access for said horses ( no locked gates or stiles)?

ninfan - but do you even know when you are breaking the law yourself?

All the bloody time apparently

How does telling people we're wrong get them to believe we are right?

How does telling people we're wrong get them to believe we are right?

Because in order for change to happen, The first step is admitting there is a problem.

But its only a small problem, we don't need to make it a bigger one.

"I'm here illegally, can I have more please" doesn't seem to to be as good as "I already have a bit, could I have a bit more please?"

Going to put this out there,

We are not going to win anything by keeping on discussing blanket opening of footpaths

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, therefore arguing for it makes us utterley unreasonable, we have been repeating the same mantra for thirty years, and achieved nothing more than banging our head against a brick walll, because every time we discuss it we fail to recognise and admit that not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, so it just pours petrol on the fire and stokes up opposition

The debate needs to move on and argue for access to the routes that are reasonable for bikes to be changed, as quickly and as easily as possible. there will not be a blanket change

Access in Scotland seems to work completely via self-regulation. User conflict and/or unsuitability means that mountain bikers don't ride everywhere in practice, even if they have a right to do so in principle. Am I missing something here?

Podge

You seem to be convinced that if we could just convince everyone that riding bikes on a footpath isn't illegal, it was only a trespass, then it would solve everything

It doesn't make any 'king difference, it's pathetic sophistry

What we need to do is change the law/status of these routes so that bikes [b]are[/b] allowed on them

And your solution doesn't move us one step down that path

Jumping up and down asking to be allowed on all footpaths doesn't get us anywhere either.

Access in Scotland seems to work completely via self-regulation. User conflict and/or unsuitability means that mountain bikers don't ride everywhere in practice, even if they have a right to do so in principle. Am I missing something here?

Yes, that, much as you might like it, we are not going to win that debate in England or Wales. We have been saying the same old thing for thirty years, and we haven't got anywhere with it.

We need to start being pragmatic and arguing for more access to the places that [b]are[/b] suitable, e.g. Existing tracks ad paths on CROW land & upgrading shed loads of footpaths that are perfectly usable by bike, without distancing and excommunicating ourself with unreasonable requests, like demanding access to [b]all[/b] footpaths.

We need to make it CLEAR that We're not asking for the simple blanket opening of footpaths, not all are suitable for cycling, but many are - our message needs to reflect that. We have banged our head against the wall asking for something that was so 'out there' that it didn't just get dismissed as an unreasonable request, but actively threw petrol on the fire every time we discussed it. Now, I'm not saying that long term we wouldnt all love to see something equivalent to Scottish access, but in the words of Swiss Tony, campaigning for access is like making love to a beautiful woman... you have to ask them out for dinner before you tell them what you would like to do to them afterwards.

Am I missing something here?

Look at it the other way round. Australia has very tight access laws (so i believe). You could easily say "cyclists already have better access than lots of other countries, stop complaining"

Plus England / Wales is very different to Scotland.

How so? Population density?

[quote=thepodge ]Plus England / Wales is very different to Scotland.

Apart from the lack of deep fried mars bars, in what way exactly?

ninfan - You seem to be convinced that if we could just convince everyone that riding bikes on a footpath isn't illegal, it was only a trespass, then it would solve everything

No I said education is better than misinformation.

People will ride footpaths regardless, openly criminalising cyclists is an odd way to legalising them.

aracer - Apart from the lack of deep fried mars bars, in what way exactly?

Similar but different laws at all levels.

The idea should work but to get it to work is harder than it is in Scotland.

No I said education is better than misinformation.

No, you are seeking to 'educate' people by banging on about 'it's not illegal, it's just trespass' even when you don't know the difference yourself, that's just pointless, because the day that you run up against someone like me on the other side who actually knows what the law is on that big of land, every cyclist who repeats your mantra looks like a knob.

The only misinformation is from you, because no rider can ever know the legal status of the land they are riding on, so you are creating a false sense of security and righteousness, in thinking they are not breaking the law, when in many cases they in fact will be.

[quote=jimw ]

British Camp?

In what way? Better or worse? I've never had a problem when <ahem> riding where I may not have a strict right to be, but curious about anybody who has. Though most of the places I ride I'd take the approach that if it's not a BW it should be, and I'd happily discuss that with anybody official 😉

Just as an aside, ninfan should add the Malvern Hills (as in land owned/managed by the Conservators) to his list.

Access in Scotland seems to work completely via self-regulation. User conflict and/or unsuitability means that mountain bikers don't ride everywhere in practice, even if they have a right to do so in principle. Am I missing something here?

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes

Arguably Nan Bield Pass is unsuitable for cycling, yet it remains a "must ride" classic for countless mountain bikers. It's a current right of way for cyclists and is far from being on its own when it comes to being a hike-a-bike. My wife is perfectly capable of riding a bike yet Jacob's Ladder - another classic - is wholly unsuitable for her skills. The suitability argument is extremely subjective.

Talk to your local horse riders and they will argue that many of their local bridleways are not suitable for horse riding.

That said, when it comes to suitability with regard to sharing the trail with other users, I have more empathy. Is that the kind of suitability you're referring to @ninfan?

Aracer, oh, where to start... of course Malvern Hills is Section 15 land, excluded from CROW access rights due to preexisting access rights

The actual north/south belt of hills themselves are mainly legally held as unenclosed common land - confirmed under the malvern hills act 1884. They have rights of access that predate modern access legislation, essentially the longstanding thread is that the hills were held by the Malvern Hills conservators with a duty to keep them as:

"unenclosed and unbuilt on as open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the public”

I think thats an important phrase to keep in our heads - to prevent nuisances or encroachments the conservators were also given powers to create byelaws, By the time of the 1930 act one of the aims of which was that of:
"regulating games to be played and other means of recreation to be exercised on the Malvern Hills”

At this point I am unclear as to what level of problems cycle access was causing, or whether any of the byelaws inform specifically prohibited cycling, because by the time of the 1995 act, they created an amendment to the 1930 act which added the right to create a bylaw to:

"(k) For preventing or regulating vehicles, including cycles, being parked, driven or ridden on any part of the Malvern Hills not set apart for that purpose; and for regulating the use of parking places on any part of the Malvern Hills.”

This was then conferred into the 1999 byelaws as:
"No unauthorised person shall ride any cycle on the Hills except on a public bridleway or upon a path or part of the Hills where such cycling is permitted by the Conservators.”

Now, its not particularly clear to me as to how tolerated mountain biking was on the hills before 1999, but I suspect that had it been unregulated before 1999, then suddenly banned by the creation of this bylaw, then I would have heard something about it at the time - I suspect they did this to clarify the 1930 provision as a belt and braces, because I suspect that an older bylaw would have prohibited “carts carriages or other vehicles” and precedent has shown us that this would clearly have covered cycles.
what it is of significant note that many other activities are also, or can be, regulated or controlled in the byelaws, most of which are tolerated to some degree.

So, thats our current position today - to me its pretty clear that two vitally important factors can be identified

i) One of the duties of the conservators is to provide open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the public, it doesn’t offer a value judgement against any particular form of recreation and enjoyment, its is designed to be a reflection of society - cycling, mountain biking, is a valid and widely accepted form of taking ‘air and exercise’, it is right that as mountain biking ha grown, this is reflected in the tolerance and provision offered.
ii) The current byelaws regulate cycling anywhere outside the existing bridleways, but they also allow the Conservators to identify additional areas and paths where it is permitted.. Something that I know James and others locally have been working on.

ninfan - No, you are seeking to 'educate' people by banging on about 'it's not illegal, it's just trespass' even when you don't know the difference yourself, that's just pointless, because the day that you run up against someone like me on the other side who actually knows what the law is on that big of land, every cyclist who repeats your mantra looks like a knob.

The only misinformation is from you, because no rider can ever know the legal status of the land they are riding on, so you are creating a false sense of security and righteousness, in thinking they are not breaking the law, when in many cases they in fact will be.

I've not mentioned trespass, we already look like nobs because we're happily admitting we're breaking the law.

If no rider can ever know the legal status of the land then no walker and highly likely most workers can never know either but we still agree with them. And if "in many cases" cyclist are breaking the law then equally there are cases where they are not.

Anyway this is futile, we clearly disagree.

Per square mile the population density in Scotland is far lower than in the rest of the UK, for a start. Certainly in southern England it wouldn't be a realistic approach to the issue.

I doubt there's any hill in southern England that gets as many annual visitors as Ben Nevis, but hey. Population density, amirite?

[quote=Pimpmaster Jazz ]Per square mile the population density in Scotland is far lower than in the rest of the UK, for a start.

Price of fish?

That said, when it comes to suitability with regard to sharing the trail with other users, I have more empathy. Is that the kind of suitability you're referring to @ninfan?

Yes, unfortunately public footpaths are a broad church, based on patchy and inadequately recorded historic use and partial, often arbitrary, assessment by local andparish councils. So we end up with this:

[img] [/img]

And this:

[img] [/img]

Both carrying the same legal status - in arguing/promoting the simplistic message of access to all footpaths for bikes, we are asking for access to both, and like it or not, nobody could reasonably argue that the second of those images was suitable for bikes, so we sound ridiculous in arguing for it,and continuing to do so throws petrol on the people who would most oppose it

I doubt there's any hill in southern England that gets as many annual visitors as Ben Nevis, but hey. Population density, amirite?

ahem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_Hill,_Surrey

An estimated 850,000 people visit Box Hill each year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nevis

The mountain is a popular destination, attracting an estimated 100,000 ascents a year

Price of fish?

Depends where you shop...